Abortion and the Return of Moloch

First off, for our liberals out there – who was Moloch? Moloch was a pagan god who went by various names in the ancient world, but the main point here is that Moloch was appeased by human sacrifice, especially the sacrifice of children. In case you ever wondered why the Romans, after defeating Carthage in the Third Punic War, destroyed the city entirely and sowed the ground with salt, it was because the Roman’s despised the Carthaginians, who worshiped Moloch – to the Romans, what sort of savage, inhuman people sacrifice children like that? If you want to get a sense of the horror the Romans felt, imagine a community of modern, American people getting dressed up in their best to go watch a baby being roasted alive. Since the downfall of Carthage and the later rise of Christianity, the very concept of human sacrifice has been anathema in the West – until recently.

Here was have an article by Sady Doyle which is urging all good liberals to cease defending abortion as a necessary evil, but promote it as a positive, moral good:

Katha Pollitt’s Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights is a deeply felt and well-researched book which argues that abortion, despite what any of its opponents might claim, is a palpable social good. Progressives, Pollitt says, can and must treat abortion as an unequivocal positive rather than a “necessary evil”; there is no ethical, humane way to limit abortion rights. The fact that Pollitt needs to make this argument in 2014, however, seems to indicate that pro-choicers have long been a little too nice for our own good…

Too nice for their own good? Goodness, it’s like the good lady hasn’t even checked to see just what sort of hatred, vitriol and violence is directed against pro-life people by pro-abortion. But, we’ll set that aside – the real issue here (and I do give her points for honesty) is that she’s of the view that abortion is morally good, and insistent that the pro-abortion movement say just that in public.

The article goes on for a bit about how sweet and wonderful abortion is – essentially asserting the view that pregnancy is a disease and massive, artificial medical intervention is necessary lest women have the unbelievable horror of pregnancy “forced” upon them, apparently in violation of the primary female activity, building a career in corporate America (yep, nothing says “freedom” better than being shackled to a cubicle for 8 hours a day…of course, it could be that Ms. Doyle doesn’t interact often with that part of the sisterhood which doesn’t make its living writing articles lauding abortion…). It is horrifying to read; to understand that in 2014 we have people who have so far gone into moral topsy-turvydom that evil is good and good, evil. Pregnancy to Ms. Doyle is a problem - and it needs a solution, and might as well make it a Final Solution, right?

I’ve long held the view that once you step off from morality, you’re doomed to just get worse and worse unless you step back to morality. Chesterton in one of his stories had a character point out that you can some times maintain a reasonable level of good (in spite of routine failures and sins), but you can’t maintain a reasonable level of bad – once you go bad, unless you repent completely, you’ll just get worse and worse. Once people asserted that human life is not uniquely valuable and legalized abortion, it became certain – unless we repented – that we would eventually start killing anyone who isn’t up to snuff. Now we see euthanasia for the ill and elderly, people advocating for children to be killed even after birth if they aren’t “fit”, and now a bald-faced assertion that killing is morally good – this being far different (and, morally, far below) the original argument of rare, sad necessity used to push abortion to legality. Given how far we’ve fallen, I don’t think that anyone can argue against my next statement:

Unless we repent and restore the sanctity of human life in law and custom, we will eventually start celebrating the murder of human beings.

I’m not kidding – people who have fallen low enough to say that abortion is morally good will eventually want to celebrate it. It is the next step down, don’t you see? What would stop them from doing such a thing? They already hold life, itself, in contempt – only the most narrow and selfish interests move them…and if they are to have an abortion, why not make a party out of it? And they’ll do it when they kill the elderly, as well – in fact, I can easily see, given attitudes about the environment, that killing human beings can be seen as beneficial to the world…a small sacrifice to Mother Nature, right? That it is human sacrifice – heck, so much the better: in fact, when you abort your child (or off you grandmother), you are doing a good deed…you are helping to save the plant by reducing humanity’s carbon footprint!

We are, fortunately, on the cusp of an increasingly pro-life America. The young, especially, seem to be keen on allowing everyone to live (having been born in a time when they, too, could have been aborted at will, I think, has concentrated their minds on the matter). I do hope that this is the last, hideous shriek of the Culture of Death – but if these people do continue to have power, they will continue to press their case, and we might find altars to Moloch springing up here and there. The lesson here is for everyone who still claims to be “pro-choice”: you can no longer hold to that position. You really do have to choose – be pro-life, or be pro-abortion (or, more accurately, pro-death). Pro-choice was a phrase which allowed people to hide from the actual, moral choice required of them. It is now time to choose – which side do you want to be on? On one side, there’s the rather difficult task of getting everyone into the world, and then treating them decently until they die a natural death. On the other side, people who will kill because a person is inconvenient. Pick.

Obama Joins the GOP in Fighting to Defeat Democrats

Geesh!

…Here are the four sentences that will draw all of the attention (they come more than two thirds of the way through the speech): “I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.” Boil those four sentences down even further and here’s what you are left with: “Make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.”…

Democrats just spent the last 6 months distancing themselves from Obama and here comes The Smartest Man, Ever, to muck it up for them. The last thing Democrats need is a public reminder from Obama and each and every House and Senate Democrat is a mere rubber-stamp for Obama.

The truth will out, they say – and Obama has done truth a favor, for once. I don’t know what his intent was, but he’s made it clear what the 2014 stakes are. And GOPers are already running with it.

The Continuing Death of Science

Some time back around 2006, I wrote an article on the then-Blogs for Bush about the death of science. Unfortunately, I can’t link it here because those old articles have all been archived and I’m not energetic enough to pester Matt to drag it back out. The basic premise of the article was that as science has strayed away from a rigid search for truth it has come up with so many bogus ideas that people have lost respect for it. One of the more egregious examples has been, of course, the whole anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hoax – but that was just one of very, very many (and, also, in the public mind AGW hasn’t been entirely discredited – it will be though, when we get to ten years past Al Gore’s “ice caps will be gone” prediction). I think that most of us who come here are old enough to remember when coffee and eggs were considered veritable poison – now, not so much. Time and time again “science” has been dragged out to tell us this, that or the other thing and it has turned out to be greatly exaggerated, when not flat out false.

Recently there has been a debate around Neil deGrasse Tyson and his abilities as a scientist. When it first came up, I first hadn’t the foggiest notion of who he was, because I just don’t watch a lot of TV (mostly home improvement shows because that is what the Mrs likes). Turns out, he hosted the reboot of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos. What started the controversy was deGrasse Tyson’s use of quotes from people – including former President Bush – which turned out to be bogus. And not just a little bit bogus, but incredibly, stupidly bogus. Ace of Spades has a good run down of it here. The bottom line of it all is that deGrasse Tyson, purported super-genius, (a) didn’t know what he was talking about and (b) when called out on it got all huffy and essentially demanded we forget about it and continue to honor him because he’s still so much smarter than us numbskulls – because Science, or something. Of course, an alleged scientist who doesn’t check his sources is, well, someone who isn’t a scientist, at all. He might be all sorts of things; might even be quite a clever fellow, but science is all about arriving at certainty as far as possible.

I hate to twist the knife here (well, truth be told, I don’t – its rather fun to point this stuff out), but the scientific method is a Christian invention. Specifically, a Catholic invention. Final twist: it was mostly developed by Catholic monks. You see, growing out of the Jewish tradition, the Catholic Church held that as the world was created by a Creator, and this Creator had a plan for his creation, the world then was comprehensible to the human intellect. In other words, by study, experiment and logical reasoning, we could come to understand the world as it is. This is actually quite different from all other civilizations, including the Greek which came closest to this understanding (but never developed a scientific method – and thus the Greeks, technologically, never advanced to an industrial civilization). Because monks sitting in their cells at the monastery knew that the world could be understood, eventually it was – the truth of it all was revealed. And passing out of the monastery, others picked up the threads and amazing things were learned and done. But it could only be done by strict adherence to objective truth. You can’t lie – even if your reputation is on the line. We’ve lost that.

We lost it as we shifted from being a Christian to a post-Christian civilization and the very concept of truth began to waver and grow thin. Two thousand odd years ago one well educated man asked, “what is truth?”, and for a long time after that Christians provided the answer – and in adherence to that, massively advanced human learning. Round about 150 years ago, that started to fade. We started to lose our connection not just to truth, but to a desire to know the truth. People started to doubt there was even such a thing as truth – or even such a thing as things which could be quantified and studied and understood.

Now, to be sure, there are plenty of men and women involved in science who are still out there finding the truth about things – but what we popularly know as “science” these days is a product of a very unscientific method. Its not whether a thing is true or false, but whether or not it supports a position, obtains a grant, burnishes a credential that gets it into common currency. What got deGrasse Tyson into trouble was a quote attributed to former President Bush which made out that he was an idiot – and this in service to a particular goal: making people like deGrasse Tyson seem smart and worthy of our respect; and, furthermore, making people who disagree with people like deGrasse Tyson seem utterly contemptible and not to be listened to under any circumstances. Some real scientist is out there working on a method to transport people to Mars – but he isn’t going to get the TV show, isn’t going to have the best-selling books and won’t be consulted on public policy. That sort of thing is reserved for “scientists” who will just make stuff up which, once again, supports a position, obtains a grant, burnishes a credential.

First and foremost, before you do anything else in life, you have to define your terms. That is, you must assert a dogma – and then find out whether your dogma has anything to support it. You must find out if it is true. Its no good saying you’ll find the truth and then assert it – you have to assert something and then see if it is so. You find out the truth of it by, variously, logical thinking, observation and experiment. You do that to the best of your ability and you’ll find out soon enough if your dogma is worth keeping – or whether it needs to be modified, or tossed into the scrap heap. But a rigid adherence to truth is the key – if you don’t believe that absolute, objective truth exists, then you’ll never get anywhere – well, except perhaps to a pile of money, a TV show, and the utter contempt of people who actually think.

I am not a scientist – don’t have the patience or the self-discipline for it. Most people don’t – and just because someone has a science degree doesn’t mean they do, either. The only way to tell if someone is a scientist is by what the produce. By it’s fruit shall the tree be known – if the fruit is a useful device or a solid explanation of events, then you’ve got a scientist on your hands. If its a bag of gibberish which is making its author a millionaire, then you don’t have a scientist – and you don’t need to be a scientist to tell a true scientist from a charlatan; you just need common sense and a little time to think things over in the light of truth.

And, so, science is still dead – killed by hucksters who want money and fame at the expense of the service of truth. It may still come back, one day – if we, on the whole, re-discover a desire for truth; an acceptance that some things are absolutely truth all the time, and some things are false no matter how you dress them up. Of course, that would be a rather earth shaking change in our society. In fact, most people would be flabbergasted by a society in love with truth – and a lot of people wouldn’t like it, at all.

Ebola and the Empty Government

Now that 80-100 people are being monitored for ebola in Texas, doesn’t it seem to be time to restrict travel from west Africa? Not according to the Obama Administration. I cannot understand this attitude. I tried to think of it in terms of maybe Team Obama thinks it would be racist to restrict travel from west Africa – but I don’t think any rational person would really believe that. Is it just that the Obama Administration doesn’t care? After all, its almost certain that if anyone in America dies from ebola, it will be among the lower classes…no one who lives in Manhattan and is an Obama fund raiser is likely to get it.

It is just bizarre. It would cost Obama nothing to restrict travel and would pretty much guarantee that no Americans in the United States catch it. Short, simple, no cost – and they won’t do it. Maybe it just goes in with the Obama attitude that the United States isn’t worthy of defense? Oh, I know he makes his speeches saying that while he’s President, America’s enemies better tremble in their boots, but lets face a fact here: the only reason we’re bombing in Syria is because the video beheading of Americans played a role in Obama’s cratering approval rating. ISIS could have beheaded 1,000 Americans and if Obama’s poll numbers held steady, we wouldn’t be bombing. The ebola outbreak is illustrating something about Obama: if he and his cabal aren’t threatened, nothing serious will be done.

It is almost as if they don’t see themselves from an American perspective. Citizens of the world, indeed…and while Obama is out there striking poses, the actual business of government isn’t getting done. There’s no one home – the store is not being minded. Now I begin to understand how the Secret Service could get so out of hand – no one was watching it; only when it started to risk Obama’s political fortunes was any attention given to it. We’d just better hope that at crucial moments doing a rational thing polls well between now and 2016 – because if it doesn’t, it won’t get done. Our government is empty – a mere collection of disparate forces rolling along without a plan or pilot.

The Crisis is Worse Than Imagined

Because most of us don’t really understand how far the rot has gone.

Take, for instance, ISIS – recent polling shows that the American people are a bit out in front of the President on fighting those savages.  By and large, Americans are willing to have “boots on the ground” if it means we’re killing the sort of people who behead Americans and sell women into slavery and that is a good, healthy attitude.  It shows that even as late as 2014 after a century of moral degradation, it is possible to get in the range of 47% of the American people wanting to do the right thing. But here’s the kicker – if we were at all in healthy shape, it’d be 90%.  If fighting ISIS doesn’t command respect from everyone except avowed pacifists, then what would?

But, actually, it is worse than that.  Even among those who are ok with the concept of fighting are not, in my view, fully prepared to understand what it means.  It means quite a large number of American soldiers (a million?) there for a very long time (10 years?) completely re-working the entire Middle East (meaning, re-carving it up along genuine ethnic-religious lines so that everyone gets their own sand box with no minorities around for anyone to oppress) and that implies massive population transfers – but before we get to that we’re talking quite a lot of killing of the enemy until the very idea of violent jihad is viewed with horror by everyone in the area.  I don’t think that even those who wish to fight have the moral courage to really carry it out.  Of course, we could bombs away and just massacre people there…but its a certainty that if we went for massive bombing the overwhelming majority of those killed won’t be those needing killing and such action will just provide fuel for those who are causing the trouble.

But what are we to expect?  We’ve got a nation where our ostensible feminists are demanding that college boys get arrested for failure to obtain written permission for sex, while ignoring the massive problem of sexual slavery elsewhere in the world. We’ve got gay rights activists joining anti-Israel groups indifferent to the fact that the only place a gay man is safe in the Middle East is Israel. We’ve got war hawks who propose to use mercenary Islamist “boots on the ground” rather than being willing to call up the required number of American troops. Basically, everyone has gone yellow – and that stems from the lack of any genuine moral foundation for our lives. You’re only as brave, in the end, as the thing you are willing to die for. The Jihadists, say what you will, are prepared to die for what they believe.  Are we?

Yesterday I took it upon myself to be the cold water on Twitter regarding the Hong Kong protests. My view: yeah, it’ll go on for a bit, everyone will be #IStandWithHongKong and then the Chinese government will crack down, and we’ll move on to something else. In the end, too many people make too much money off China for our Ruling Class to really stand up to the Chinese oligarchs. None of us are going to be willing to fight the Chinese government – one could get killed doing that, after all.

While I have a great deal of contempt for those westerners who joined the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War (in the end, the niwits were fighting to impose a Stalinist dictatorship in Spain), I still have a great deal of admiration for their sublime courage.  Coming from safe, prosperous lives in the United States, Britain, France and elsewhere, they gave up their blood for a cause they believed in. Anyone going to raise an International Brigade to help the people of Hong Kong? Go get our girls back in Nigeria? Assist the Kurds?  Yeah, I didn’t think so.  And why won’t we? Because we don’t believe in anything enough to really fight for it. Oh, we’ll send our troops in – and they’ll spill their blood a bit and we will, with genuine sincerity, thank them and remember them.  But what about you and me, dear reader? What will we actually do?

Not much. Wring our hands. Make a statement. We won’t show real courage, because we don’t really believe in anything. We have neither the kind of courage which had the Crusaders storm Jerusalem, nor the kind which sent St. Francis with a comrade to try and end the Crusades by converting the Muslims. Godfrey of Bouillon and St. Francis had guts – raw courage; the sort of nerve which understands that courage is an intense desire to live carried out with a supreme indifference to death. We just want to live. With our I-Crap. And our scandal-mongering.

If anyone out there has the courage of Godfrey or St. Francis, then it is time to stand forth. We are doomed if we don’t change – if we don’t become a people with a firm moral basis and a willingness to lose everything we have in defense of core principals (that would be “dogmas” for old-fashioned sorts of people). If we don’t become such people, then we will eventually be conquered by people like that.

UPDATE: Yes, I do sound like a nattering nabob of negativism – and I know there are plenty of people, good and true, who wish to do the right thing. But I am worried about whether or not we, on the whole, can muster the courage to do what is right. And for you liberals out there, keep in mind that it covers you, as well. I used the examples of Godfrey and St. Francis on purpose…the former went to drive a sword in as far as it would go; the latter went to convert by love and example. Both took courage – both took an absolute belief in certain, fixed moral principals. We have got to be willing to say to the world, “here is what we absolutely believe in, all of us: and we will brook no opposition from anyone beyond this point”.

So, Will 2014 Be a GOP Wave, or Not?

Here you’ve got analysis that the GOP only picks up a few seats and that works out to a win for Nancy Pelosi. Here you’ve got other analysis which indicates the GOP might get its largest majority since the 1928 election. So, which is it?

Beats all heck out of me. Real Clear Politics currently has the GOP with 47 Senate seats in the bag, the Democrats with 44 and 9 toss-ups, with the likely outcome as of today being 52 GOPers and 48 Democrats (that includes us losing Kansas, by the way – which I don’t think we will, in the end). But another way to read it is that the GOP could end up with as many as 56 Senate seats – an 11 seat gain. That would, indeed, be a wave.

While there is trouble for the GOP on the gubernatorial front (we’re definitely going to lose Pennsylvania and we’ll probably lose Kansas), there is also Democrat governor Hickenlooper’s likely defeat to counter that – and Hickenlooper was supposed to be the perfect person to transition a purple State to blue…now he’s probably going to lose, and maybe take down Democrat Senator Udall with him…all because he’s liberal.  Not fanatically liberal, but just liberal…and that is being rejected in Colorado, to all appearances (and this can’t make Team Hillary comfortable about 2016 – she’s a female Hickenlooper).

I really don’t know where this is heading. But there are some ingredients for a blow out – of course, we must remember the GOP’s penchant for snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory (and talk of Jeb or Romney running in 2016 is the GOP Establishment’s way of saying “we’d rather have Hillary than Walker”).

Global Warming Hoax Update

From Don Surber:

After 35 years of telling us carbon dioxide is melting ice in Antarctica, New Scientist is now saying carbon dioxide has caused the ice to grow for 35 years.

What they said before:

From January 2, 2001: “Ice in the heart of Antarctica is retreating and causing sea level rise, scientists have shown for the first time.

From June 23, 2007: “Rising sea levels could divide and conquer Antarctic ice.

From March 25, 2008: “Antarctic ice shelf ‘hanging by a thread’.

From January 21, 2009: “Even Antarctica is now feeling the heat of climate change.”

From March 10, 2009: “Sea level rise could bust IPCC estimate: Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice fast and could end up taking sea levels to nearly twice predicted levels by 2100.

From July 31, 2011: “Antarctica rising as ice caps melt.

Got that?

Year-in and year-out, the editors at the New Scientist have warned us that the ice in Antarctica is melting fast…

So, what is New Scientist saying now? That the Antarctic ice cap is larger than ever, and that global warming is the cause.

Face it, we can’t actually win this debate – if glaciers start to cover half of North America, the global warming alarmists will be out there saying it is because of global warming. It doesn’t matter what the facts are because global warming is replacing religion in the lives of people on the left…they have to believe in something, and they’ve decided to believe that (a) humanity (mostly Republicans, it goes without saying) are destroying the planet and (b) only they – the liberals – can save it. You can’t beat someone’s religious beliefs; you can’t argue them out of it. All we can do is hope to win elsewhere enough political power to prevent these numbskulls from wrecking things in the name of saving the planet.